Proper quoting
- From: "TJT2" <creationism.is.truth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:01:45 +0300
>From page
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1
"2.1 How much should I quote?
It is not necessary to quote the entire text of the person you respond
to. A quoting should always and first of all clarify the context,
enabling the reader to understand the flow of the thread. A quoting is
not ment to re-post the previous article.
In general, it is completely sufficient to only leave that part of the
message to which one refers. People reading the thread either know the
context of the discussion or are able to find the context by using the
References to read the entire thread. In order to fully understand the
message it is quite often necessary to read the previous articles
anyway, since one message leads to another and sometimes can only be
understood when read in context.
By quoting only the necessary parts, the reading-flow is simplified a
lot, especially with respect to long articles. Big quotations often make
it more difficult to find the actual new text. It is not uncommon that
people do not even read the entire article - who wants to read the
entire text *again* in search of something new?
On the other hand, the quotation should not be so short that it is
unclear to what the author is referring to, or so that it may even
appear in a totally different light.
2.2 What should not be quoted?
Text to which you are not responding should be deleted. This way you
make it easier for others to read your response without having to reread
old text. Also, you save tons of bandwidth on thousands of servers.
In general, signatures have nothing to do with the context of the
article, and usually you are not going to refer to the poster's
signature. Therefore, signatures should always be deleted."
More Of proper quoting
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
--
--TJT--
all their anger expressed over creationism is a smokescreen to hide this
lack of evidence, which suggests that they are really defending a
religion, not science.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can you accept Ed Conrad's "fossils" as casts of human bones?
- Next by Date: Re: So I got my wisdom teeth pulled yesterday (all 4 of them)...
- Previous by thread: NYT on the DI
- Next by thread: Boycott Contributors to the Discovery Institutute?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|